a look at the best-selling books according to the boston globe continues with nancy eisenberg's evaluation of class in america. that's followed by nathaniel daniels book called valiant ambition. then the life changing magic of tidying up. in bobby kennedy, journalist

larry looks at the life of the attorney general. that's a look at some of the current nonfiction bestsellers according to the boston globe. many of these authors have appeared or will be appearing on book tv and you can watch them on our website booktv.org.

>> good evening. welcome. just a few quick administrative notes, please turn off your cell phones if you haven't already. will we get to the q&a part of the session, c-span book tv is here filming and we are filming also for the youtube channel, we would appreciate it if you have a question to find your way to that microphone there so not only everybody watching can hear you but jean, who's 83, can also hear you. please be considerate of everybody else. before you come up to get your books signed, our staff asked that you fold up the chairs that your seating and -- in.

this must be a crowd of hard-core presidential history enthusiast. either that or some of you are just looking for a distraction from the presidential history happening before us on a daily basis. i would like to introduce jean edward smith who is a distinguished biographer of presidents and other notable figures. he has written about eisenhower, fdr and grant as well is others. all this while holding down a day job as a professor. he's been with the university of toronto for 35 years and a dozen years at marshall university and

columbia and university of virginia and several other schools that are probably leaving out. now he has zeroed in on the president of george w. bush. he is very critical of our 43rd president, no question whether it's been miss guided invasion of iraq or torture tactics, the fumbled response to katrina, there, there is much to be critical about. he places responsibility for the administration's resonating failure firmly on the former president, notwithstanding the influence that also. [inaudible] but as a reviewer in the new yorker said his book doesn't feel like a hatchet job. it's in the word of the new york

times, a comprehensive and compelling narrative and they said life with a sense of history. one of the most interesting tidbits i learned about him from the acknowledgment in bush the book, he still composes in longhand on yellow legal pad. he then has someone type up what he would written. when you consider this book is almost 800 pages and print, that's a lot of legal pads. please join me in welcoming jean davis smith. [applause] >> thank you very much. this is my introduction of the third viagra fee here up politics and prose. earlier i did fdr and it's always a pleasure for me to return to washington where i was

born 833 years ago and went to elementary school and junior high school and high school. i was not permitted to interview george bush for the biography. dick cheney whom i interviewed a number of times set up in the interview for me and allison just before i was to fly out i got a call from one of his aides and it was that the president didn't want to see you. you wrote a book critical of his father and for that reason he does not wish to see you. that was true. i wrote a book dealing with the first iraq war and it was critical of bush's decision in iraq. before i begin, let me make two

remarks to put the biography and context. first when it came to national security policy george w. bush was absolutely in charge. all the decisions were his. he was indeed the decider, as he called himself. after 911 and everything, he was not a fan of condoleezza rice or anyone else. he was the driving force. whether it was snooping or the war in iraq, these were all personal decisions made by the president. everyone on the administration fell into line. the nsc was established by the congress in 1947.

the idea idea behind it was to prevent the concentration of power in the white house that happened under fdr in world war ii. it was designed to bring the secretary of state and secretary of defense military leadership. you were to discuss national security issues. in his eight years in the white house he presided over 314 meetings of the nsc. he appointed george bundy as his security advisor. neither truman nor eisenhower had a national security advisor and the size of the staff mushroom. under truman and eisenhower the

staff were basically notetakers. under kennedy the size of the staff had increased up to 20 and began to and the policy issues. it doubled again when kissinger became the national security advisor to nixon and by the time george bush took office it numbered well over 100. these were professional experts in specific areas. in many respects the national security act of 1947 had been turned on its head. instead of a body that coordinated government policy as was intended, the national security council staff became a policymaking tool for the president. bush ran policy from the white house and the national security staff allowed him to do . the second point i would like to make is that bush is a born again christian who saw the

world in biblical terms. that was especially true after 911. bush defined the battle against terrorism as a struggle between good and evil. he saw himself as a place on earth to defeat the forces of satan. that religious fixation is the common denominator behind both the domestic excesses of the bush administration and the foreign policy decisions he made. in many respects the contrast to abraham lincoln is interesting. lincoln, in in 1861 after the battle of bull run was visited by a delegation of protestant ministers and the spokesman for the group told him that he had a vision from heaven the night before and the president had said. [inaudible]

he replied, i hope the lord is on my side but what i really need is kentucky. [laughter] today is george bush's 70th birthday. he was born in new haven connecticut on july 6, 1846. upon his father's graduation from yale the family moved to texas where the senior bush went into the oil business. george w grew up in midland and when it came time for high school he finished near the bottom of his class. the dean of students at andover told george not to bother to apply to yale because his grades were so low he could not possibly get in but george did so and was admitted. george was a fourth-generation legacy at yale, his grandfather,

his father, great grandfather all had gone to yale not the time he applied, yell was admitting 52% of the legacy applicants. princeton and harvard were admitting 14%. when he became president of el during his freshman year and change the rules. from that point on yellow would take the same amount of students that princeton and harvard took, 14%. his three brothers and sisters had the same legacy credentials that he did and no one got in. bush did no better at yale than he did at andover. returning to texas and spent the next five years in the wilderness.

his father arranged for him to be commissioned in the air national guard which deferred him for service in vietnam and his career in the guard has become a matter of controversy. it was during these five years that bush drank heavily and used drugs. he was admitted to the harvard business school in september of 1973 and is one of the few graduates of harvard business school, if not the only one not to have a job offer when he graduated. [laughter] he had 53 interviews with fortune 500 companies and did not receive a job job offer. one of his classmates told him his classmates considered him ignorant. with no job offer he returned to texas and like his father went into the oil business buying leases on property hoping to

strike oil. in 1977 he married laura welsch. the. the following year he ran as the republican nominee to secede retiring congressman george mae hahn. if those of you who are old as i am you remember he was a member of the appropriations committee for 12 years and was a senior member of the house. after the election he returned to the oil business, prospered for several years through family connection but the downturn in oil prices hit hard. he profited from several mergers and eventually sold out. it was during this time that bush became a born-again christian. in his memoirs, bush credits billy graham with his rediscovery of god but the fact is the conversion came a year earlier by a lesser-known evangelist. it's also true at this time that

bush gave up drinking. the occasion was his 40th birthday celebration at the broadmoor hotel in colorado springs. he was celebrating his 40th birthday and became hopelessly intoxicated and woke up the next morning with an incredible hangover and resolved to quit drinking. laura said it was because he got the bill from the previous night celebration. actually it was because george recognize that his father was running for president and he didn't want to embarrass him in anyway so he stopped drinking. it was 1986 and the longer he was in the oil business, they moved to washington to assist his father's presidential campaign in the 88 election. george was given an office, campaign headquarters and the woodward building down near the white house and his office was between roger ailes who is

handling the publicity, now head of fox news and for the next two years he learned about electoral politics from two gifted practitioners. he ran against michael dukakis and george really saw firsthand how to run a presidential campaign. when the election was over in november of 88 he planned to work in his father's administration and return to texas. he started an informal campaign to run for governor and at the same time helped organize the syndicates to buy the texas rangers baseball team. the rangers as you may recall are the senators expansion team that have been formed here in 1961. they moved to texas in 1972.

they were spirited contenders and the deal came through and bush stopped running for governor and for the next four years was the public head of the texas rangers. he owns only 2% of the the stock. he built a new stadium and really fast in the glow of an improving baseball franchise. he assisted in his father's election in 1992 but from a distance he stayed in texas and when clinton won the election he ran for governor for texas. jeb ran for governor of florida at the same time. bush was running against and richard in texas. in florida jeb was favored to defeat the democratic incumbent. the election was an upset. george one in texas job lost in florida and from that point on

george became the likely successor to his father. texas are really the largest, the second-largest in the state of the union in terms of area and the second largest in terms of population. >> 1876 stripped power from the governor. the governor of texas is essentially a symbolic figure a little like the queen of england most political science scholars in state government consider the texas governorship the weakest in the united states per the governor of texas cannot even issue pardons. that's. [inaudible] as the symbolic leader of texas he was overwhelmingly reelected

in 1998 and he also built a political machine led by carl and erin hughes and was quite quietly exploring the possibility of running for president in 2000. bush announced his candidacy in june 1999, defeated john mccain in the primaries, was nominated almost unanimously at the convention. al gore was the democratic nominee and was heavily favored to win the election. core fumbled almost immediately when he chose the most conservative democrat in the senate as his running mate. he snubbed bill clinton throughout the entire campaign and did poorly in the three television debates. the chores of lieberman and the snubbing of clinton gave third-party candidates and

opening on the left and he would believe he would also pull about 3 million votes in the election came to the floor. gore failed to carry ten states that he had carried in the 1996 election. any one of which would've been over the top. the supreme court decided that he would become president and bush was superb as a politician seeking votes but he had no executive experience, little knowledge of international affairs and really had not traveled abroad, a short attention span and genuinely believed he was god's agent put here on earth. with the exception of appointing colin powell as secretary of state, donald rumsfeld as secretary of defense and his friends as secretary of

commerce, he delegated the selection of his cabinet and other top federal officials to dick cheney and clustered himself in the white house with his staff from texas plus condoleezza rice as his national security adviser and andy card as chief of staff. if you think about it, it is inconceivable that franklin roosevelt would've turned the selection of his cabinet over to john garner or dwight eisenhower would have allowed nixon to do that, especially after the scandal. as a result, bush took office with the sub cabinet appointees who were powerfully motivated and already equipped to provide the intellectual justification for the president's policies. conservative in outlook and articulate, these like-minded longtime friends cheney played an important role during his

first two years. he had an office in the white house and his staff became part of the staff. they were all white house staff. the administration position on energy, the the revision of the tax code in 2001 and after 911 the presidential directive to try al qaeda members by military commissions all reflected his input. over the years influence leaders. bush devoted himself to domestic issues. the united states had run a budgetary surplus under clinton. clinton had applied the surplus to reducing the national debt. he was consistent that the money should be returned to the taxpayers, it's your money he said frequently on the election trail. they are urging congress to pass one of the largest cuts in history. he also pressed reform and no

child left behind which congress also enacted. bush rarely touched form policy issues during his first month of office but when he did so it was with determination to assert american supremacy. the clinton administration in south korea had worked since 1994 to bring north korea back into the family of nations. the united states thought they were provide economic assistance for north korea in return for rich north korea would abandon its nuclear program. madeleine albright visited in december 2000. the president came in 2001 to put the final seal on the deal with north korea. north korea was on the verge of renouncing nuclear weapons and signing a peace treaty with the

south. bush rejected the idea. this wasn't something that bubbled up from one of the white house staff. the north koreans were evil he believed in the government must be replaced. this was bush's personal decision. the attacks of 911 were surprised but merely reinforce his view of good versus evil. in many respects the attacks of 911 have been a defining moment in american history. bush led the united states into a 3 trillion-dollar war in iraq and had the doctor or in of unavoidable war and weakened our alliances and aspired young muslims around the world to join the jihad. domestically it was an leased by

the administration and undermines liberty and tarnish the respect of traditional american values of tolerance and moderation. on september 12 he assumed total responsibility and total authority as the nation's commander-in-chief. that morning cheney offered to lead a group of cabinet officers to devise policy. bush rejected the officer offer. this is a job for the commander-in-chief and cannot be delegated, said bush. rather than treat treat the events of 911 as isolated incidents, rather than handle them through the political process bush depicted them as acts of war by the course of evil. i won't really go into his assault on american civil liberties. in the book i devote two

chapters to nsa spying and the torture trail and the record is clear. bush genuinely believed he was fighting the forces of satan. as a result, if you're doing that, no holds are barred. whether it is enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition or the intercept of private communications here in the united states, he thought he was god's agents in the final fight to rid the world of evil. let me say a few words about the war in iraq. from the beginning bush was determined to remove saddam hussein. the intervention in afghanistan was simply a warm-up. he instructed the department of defense to prepare to invade iraq and ignored the findings of un weapons inspectors that he had no weapons of mass destruction. the planning for the invasion

began early 2002 and the military assume the purpose was to remove saddam hussein, destroy whatever weapons of mass instruction might be found and leave iraq as soon as possible. they believe 90 days should be sufficient. that's what the military plan for. the invasion took place, saddam was captured and search for military weapons began and the military began to withdrawal, leaving it to the iraqis to work things out. as both the state department and the defense department sought, they had been liberated and i was up to the iraqis to move ahead on their own. the party remained in control, the army, the iraqi army remained in place in the senior leadership council established by general jay garner was

developing plans and a rack was still a secular state. on may 1 2003, speaking on, speaking on the flight deck of the abraham lincoln, lincoln, under banner that read mission accomplished, bush that the purpose of the invasion was to bring democracy to iraq that the united states forces would remain there until that was accomplished. bush changed the mission without consulting anyone. decision was unilateral. instead of liberators the army would now become occupiers and would bring democracy to iraq. rumsfeld, powell wore all dumbfounded by this change but acquiesced. in retrospect they probably should not have done so. let me digress just for a moment to explain the difference between being liberators and being occupiers.

liberators set a country free. occupiers impose their will. in world war ii as the day approached, franklin roosevelt didn't want to be bothered governor governing occupied france. instead over his rigorous objections he brought them from north africa and six days after d days the gall landed and they took over the government of liberated france. the united states and canadian troops moved ahead without regard for what was happening in france. that was their responsibility. then germany became occupied in the whole government was disbanded and the allies took control. france was liberated and france was occupied. that's an important distinction. all the military assumed they

were liberating iraq from saddam hussain and that they had worked things out for themselves. then on may 1, the flight deck of the abraham lincoln bush changed direction. instead of liberators, coalition forces to become occupiers and really was downhill from there. he was appointed to head the occupation as the president's representative, the baptist party was outlawed in the iraqi army was disbanded in most government offices were closed. the coalition forces in many respects became the enemy. bush baird's sole responsibility for that decision. and if i were it may a word or two about the situation at the prison, we've all seen the photos of the atrocities that work committed.

what we did not know at the time , and was that the military police on duty were not acting on their own. they were not just hillbillies, they had been urged by the cia and military intelligence to abuse the prisoners before they were being interrogated to set them up. subsequent military investigations, the first five general had documented clearly that the outrages we saw were a deliberate effort to break the will of prisoners before they were interrogated. by 2006 they became deeply distressed about the situation and he ordered a number of

troops to regain the initiative and found petraeus in command. petraeus is an interesting figure. an army passed them over for promotion in 2003 among other things because they thought he was too ambitious. he was promoted to a three star rank to george w. bush who promoted him and his career took off. he was indeed ambitious. i shouldn't say this but so many of my classmates here but when he was head of the cia, a group of alumni wanted him to become president of princeton. he then to seek the republican nomination in 2016. maybe they were right, just as eisenhower had done, when he was president of columbia in 1952, that effort failed when the

affair became public and the obama administration really focused in. the surgeon iraq helped it other than the factors that were more important. the anbar awakening in which the sunni leadership decided they wanted no part of the isis leadership, the decision of shiite cleric to disband his army which ran told him to do but in any event, by the end of 2007 in order had been achieved in late 2008, just before he left office, bush went to baghdad to sign an agreement providing for the american forces iraq by 2011. eleven. that was a disgruntled iraqi

took off his shoes and killed them. his decision to invade iraq was the worst foreign policy decision ever made by a american president and if anyone can think of anything worse please let me know. that doesn't necessarily mean that he was america's worst president. herbert hoover probably has a lock on that. he did well domestically as president, no child left behind has been a valuable contribution to the educational program, particularly for children from disadvantaged family. the medicare to provide prescription drugs for seniors is a remarkable achievement. bush also took the lead in the global fight against aids, particularly in africa and under his leadership it has to some

degree been brought under control. bush remains active in the fight, he also also expanded american free trade when bush took office, we had free trade agreements with canada and mexico and a now has free trade agreements with 16 countries. he also included on an agreement in his early term to reduce nuclear arsenal that each country maintained and he and improved relations with china. i think is most important achievement, however was to contain the economic meltdown in 2008. against all of his instincts and deeply held beliefs he bailed out wall street and the american auto industry and avoided another great depression. unlike the war in iraq for the fight against terrorism at home, this time he listened to his advisers.

the secretary of the treasury and ben bernanke of the federal reserve carved out a strategy of support. from bailing out subprime mortgage lenders and rescuing the market itself with a massive troubled asset relief program, bush deserves credit for taking some serious action. it was a remarkable achievement and probably saved the world's economy and when they failed to rescue lehman brothers, that was also thanks to bush. i haven't said much about his personal life. he was always an early riser and got up early in the morning, still good does he goes to bed shortly before 10, he's a physical fitness buff and exercise for two hours a day in the white house jim but he was in a detail man. he wrote short descriptions and brief memos.

he and laura were close and they kept entertaining to the minimum. laura was a major source for the president and took her responsibility seriously and did not seek the limelight. she usually accompanied bush on his trips abroad and provided great comfort for him. paul's are being, the long serving senator from maryland, as you know a staunch democrat said he thought the war was the best first lady he had ever met and paul became a member of congress when pat nixon was first lady. as ex-president, he has been exemplary. unlike unlike most of his predecessors he doesn't miss the office, doesn't try to second-guess obama.

after the election, after obama was sworn in he told friends in dallas, free at last. in many respects he is a model for what the president should be. as i said i don't think he is america's worst president but i do believe his decision to attack iraq is the worst foreign policy decision ever made and it gets worse as time goes on. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think your presentation in books is quite timely with the report in the uk today. the question i have is you seem to present an individual who may be unqualified to assume this position as president and yet, i

know there are two pivotal historical points that might have changed the course of history, the first was how george w. bush was selected as republican nominee in the primaries over john mccain and if things were different that could've change the course of history and then al gore's brush off of clinton in the democratic race as well. what lessons in your work do you find that we can learn as far as taking qualified leaders and picking qualified leaders in this election? [laughter] g, i'm not sure. i don't think that's a question i can easily answer. i think i will just let it sit at that, if you don't mind. >> i just have one question, in

one of his books he mentioned george w bush drinking and mentioned that he stopped drinking but he didn't take the steps necessary to grow up. i looked around and i see untreated alcoholics who can be very dangerous because they're running around and still thinking and acting on impulse and doing all sorts of stuff like the thing you mentioned on the abraham lincoln, sort of getting up and going to the mic and oh, i know what's neat, let's do let's do this thing going on from there. i was just asking if you have any reflections on something like that. >> that's very interesting. i didn't know that, but i think you're right. >> prof. smith, i'm a college student in the washington d.c. area.

several years ago i read your biography of president eisenhower. which is one of the most interesting and meaningful books that i've read. my question follows. i know for example, i read for example that you served in berlin in the u.s. military. would you say you had any life experiences which were particularly helpful in the context of writing a biography and what were they and how were they particularly helpful. >> you mean my military experience. >> or others. >> i can say when i was in berlin, it really goes back to

my childhood here in washington d.c., my grandmother lived with us from before i started school. my grandmother always read biographies to me. i've always been interested in biographies and when i was a graduate student at columbia, before i took my orals, the chairman of the department wanted me to bring him a list of all the books i had read and he did in he said g there are a lot of biographies here. >> thank you. >> just to pick up a little bit on the last question, how do you see bush in the light of eisenhower's legacy, how would eisenhower have assessed bush's record and in the light of what's been going on in the republican party, how do you see eisenhower dealing with that?

>> on the first question, don't forget, eisenhower was elected by his promise to win the war in korea and he went to korea and saw was unwinnable and immediately made peace. the united states had peace for the remaining eight years of the eisenhower term. eisenhower, having seen war first-hand didn't want to get back into one. don't forget, when eisenhower won the nomination against taft in 1952, he represented the liberal wing of the democratic party. for the next eight years, maybe longer than that, it was the liberal wing of the party that dominated. taft was the candidate of the conservative wing of the party and he lost and eisenhower really had no use for them. i don't think it's generally well-known but it was eisenhower behind-the-scenes who conducted

the operation against mccarthy. it was eisenhower who selected welsh to be the council in those hearings so, thank you. rather than restoring civil liberties, why do you think it is that democrats and other politicians have been hindered and people like jimmy carter. [inaudible] >> i don't know. the republican party leadership and the republican party generally has moved much further to the right than it was 40 or 50 years ago and i think this view comes naturally. >> i'm not sure of that, but i think that's possible. >> the democrats acted more like republicans except for social issues.

there are many politic issues as well. >> you could say the whole spectrum has moved to the right. >> thank you. >> i've read your biography of fdr. i thought it was absolutely first-rate and i would like to say we americans are fortunate that a canadian scholar will tack tackle so many of the questions in american history. i look forward to reading the book. >> i have to confess when the university of toronto hired me in 1965 in the department of political economy was a very large department, 100 some faculty members, i was the first american onboard and i went there, they want to me there because they wanted to teach american government. in my entire exposure i taught american government.

your statement that this was the worst foreign policy decision ever made, i can't believe anyone here would not concur with that. it has unleashed the sunni shiite war, invited iran into the scene and my question is, do you think it's fair to argue that we can really blame the iraq war largely for the arrival of isis? >> absolutely because so long as saddam remained in power, iraq was a secular state at that time and he needed his military to keep the lid on. i think that's absolutely

correct. i've been thinking a great deal about is there another form policy decision that might outrank bush's decision to go to war in iraq and the only one i could possibly come up with was harry truman's decision to drop the atomic weapon on hiroshima. that's the only thing i can think of. >> what about lbj's decision on on vietnam. >> the point you made earlier, in vietnam there's no carryover. there's no isis, there's no war of terrorism and so forth that came out of the vietnam war. >> i think that's the principle distinction between the two. another question about : powell.

>> i just wanted to ask, what is your thought about: powell : powell. to me he's like a tragic hero and he may have a lot of remorse yet his story, no one's really's really shed the light on his story. >> there's a very good biography about : powell written by the reporter for the washington post he was bush's first cabinet point he. bush really wanted him, but he was quickly shut out by the white house. he was. [inaudible] the answer of this may be in your book, find out when i get to reading it, how directly, how directly involved was bush in the disastrous decisions to disband the army? remer gets blamed for some of that but did bush give the order?

>> no, bush did not give the order. but brehmer was instructed to go over and bring democracy to iraq and when he did make the order, bush immediately approved it. >> there was no, bush did not order it. >> so we've had a few glancing mentions of the current nominee for president in the republican party and i've noticed among democrats and republicans there tends to be a great deal of sympathy or renewed positive feelings towards george w. bush presidency in wake of the current nominee. what do you think of that? >> really? [laughter]

[laughter] my dad is an old-school democrat and thinks, i'll drawl a parallel for an example, trump views on barring muslims from entering our country versus perhaps george w. bush repeated mention that islam cultures peace and things like that. >> i'm surprised at the belief that bush's reputation is improving. i think if you look today at the investigation of bush and blair, it's not going to improve. >> they wanted me to write an op-ed on comparing bush and

trump and i said no thank you for speaking. i was also in treat to come here when i read in the review, he wasn't the worst president by going to iraq was the worst form policy. so to flip that question, what are some of the best form policy decisions or the best? >> the best form policy? i think you have to go back to the roosevelt administration and certainly eisenhower's decision to make peace in korea. it was a breakthrough. eisenhower was working very closely to improve relations and then he screwed it up.

but it would've shrunk the cold war by a great deal. think you probably have to go back there. >> also but, certainly president lincoln decision to maintain the union, you had to admit. >> i think you have a consensus about the iraq war under george bush was the worst foreign policy decision but how do you treat the war against afghanistan which i think was weekend but also. >> the war against afghanistan was weakened by bush's decision

to go into iraq, but i'm going to take a minority position on this because i'm not sure the war on afghanistan was necessary the the incident that happened on 9/11, planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings. that's not a reason to go to war you handle that as a legal issue, you try it in the courts if you find anyone else who was involved but you don't go to war for something like that. i mean be in a minority position but that's what i believe. >> i think bush welcomed the possibility to be a war hero like his father. >> i'm not sure he welcomed the, but i'm sure he responded to it. thank you. >> richard clark has suggested perhaps george bush should be

tried as a war criminal. you have any comments on that? >> i don't think presidents are guilty of war crimes. >> you seem to give bush credit for handling the financial credit. there was an hbo movie about it and it sort of pretrade them as making policy and then at the last minute they think we should consult the white house before we release it. >> i think they should make policy but i don't think they set at the last minute they said we should consult the white house. i think they knew they had to consult the white house and i think they did a good job of bringing bush along which was canterbury to all of his views. >> i also think bush realized he had messed up earlier and he had messed up the iraq thing.

i think he was much more inclined to listen to paulson and bernanke. >> would you like to discuss the renewal of the saudi arabia oil concessions during both bush wars? >> i'm not sure i'm qualified to do that, but you raise a question that i think is certainly very important. i don't know the details sufficiently to give you an answer. [applause]

, rod tv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what their reading this summer. >> i read constantly. i grew up in a small town in the library was an important part of my life. i saw the rest of the world by which books i checked out of the local public library. all my life i have been a reader and still want that book in my hand so i'm old-fashioned in wanting the hard copy.

i often read biography and history and things that you might expect somebody who's interested in government politics to read. the one at the moment is douglas macarthur, a biographer biography. he predates my time and i didn't know a lot about him other than he has been somewhat controversial. this is a new book to me written by arthur herman and i'm learning about him as a general and military leader. i'm just a few pages, probably 50 pages from being done with this book and i'm trying to get it done before i get on the airplane so i don't have to carry another book. again, just this week i was was in a meeting in which a historian and author was speaking in describing a book and this was probably the next one on my list, franklin and winston, the story about two world war ii leaders, great britain and the united states and their relationship. i think he's a great author and

very smart and i love to read what he writes. this isn't a brand-new book but it's 1i haven't read's that's probably next on my list. i keep track of what books i read. not a lot of fiction but particularly things about the world that are inspiring and give you insight on their lives and how they did things that perhaps make a difference. current politics, i just finished reading alter ego's, a story about the relationship between secretary clinton and president obama. particularly as it relates to national security and security. two rivals who come together in the same administration. it's an opportunity to get a feel for what was going on in washington d.c., a place that i work certainly don't have the

insight behind the curtains as to what goes on behind the curtains. another national security book i just read this summer, michael hayden, former national security director talking about the link of space and terrorism and this was called playing to the edge. it was about his time in the cia. again, same kind of venue. mostly history, sometimes current things,. i read the story of john mcclay, the individuals who president lincoln had met in illinois. they came with him and it's the story about their lives is to young men working in the lincoln administration during the civil war and what happened in their lives "after words". again, i like to read history,

less interested in the battlefield but much more interested in the people that serve in that capacity. probably my favorite book of the summer has been hamilton. i've decided that he's a great author and i'm going to look for his books to continue to read and i know i have several of them that i haven't read and i'm now interested in doing so. this caught my attention because of the musical, the musical hamilton is based upon this book and i happen to see it sitting in a bookstore and i was interested to see what caught today's audience based on the life of alexander hamilton, our first treasury secretaries. this is probably the one i enjoyed the most, unfortunately it's the longest and it often turns out to be that way. i'm always complaining that the thickest books turn out to be